The Social Construction of Probation Counselor: Comparative Qualitative Analysis in Romania and the Republic of Moldova
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.18662/lumenss/10Keywords:
social construction, probation, constitutive values, operational values, practice of value-centred probationAbstract
This paper brings a series of contributions to the understanding of probation practice as a permanent process of social construction, as well as identification of axiological, ideological, normative and institutional frameworks of the process, and how these frameworks are reflected in the speech on practice. The research approach is exploratory, based on the Grounded Theory model, and framed in the social-constructionist paradigm. The research conducted in the N.-E. Area of Romania and the Republic of Moldova confirm our model, according to which the social construction of reality has an axiological and ethical ground, through the existence of constitutive values, and a semiotic-discursive one, guided by operational values. Within this research, there were developed a series of conclusions that could be hypotheses for future research: The Romanian and Moldavian probation model is a multi and transdisciplinary one, with strong assistential and social-therapeutic accents.References
Balahur, D. (2001). Fundamente socio-juridice ale probaţiunii. Iaşi, România: Editura Bit.
Balica, E. (2009). Institutionalizarea probatiunii în România: practici si strategii situationale în contextul (post)aderarii la uniunea europeana/the institutionalization of probation in romania: situational practice and strategies in the context of the (post-) accession to the European union. Revista Romana de Sociologie, 20(3), 299-317.
Bandura, A. (1991). Social Cognitive Theory of Moral Thought and Action. In Kurtines W. M., Gewirtz J. L. (eds.), Handbook of Moral Behavior and Development, Vol. 1 (pp. 45-103). Hillsdale, NJ: Erlbaum.
Berger, P. L. & Luckmann, T. (2008). Construirea socială a realităţii. Bucureşti, România: Editura ART.
Brod, M., Tesler, L. E., & Christiansen, T. L. (2009). Qualitative research and content validity: Developing best practices based on science and experience. Quality of Life Research, 18(9), 1263-1278. 10.1007/s11136-009- 9540-9
Clark, P. (2011). Social Work and Juvenile Probation: Historical Tensions and Contemporary Convergences. Social Work, 56(4), 355–365. doi:10.1093/sw/56.4.355
Clear, T. R. & Latessa, E. J. (1993). Probation officer roles in intensive supervision: Surveillance versus treatment. Justice Quarterly, 10, 441-462.
Cojocaru, V. (2005). Instituţia probaţiunii în Republica Moldova. In M. Bulgaru (coord.), Asistenţa socială şi justiţia juvenilă: modalităţi de integrare şi cooperare. Culegere de articole elaborate în baza comunicărilor la Conferinţa ştiinţifică din 22 aprilie 2005 (pp. 90-98). Universitatea de Stat din Moldova. Centrul Republican de Resurse pentru Asistenţă Socială.
Corbin, J., & Strauss A. (2008). Basics of qualitative research: techniques and procedures for developing Grounded Theory, third edition. London, UK: Sage Publications Inc. Creswell, J. W. (2007). Qualitative Inquiry and Research Design: Choosing Among Five Traditions (second edition). CA: Sage Publication, Inc.
Dale, M., & Trlin, A. (2007). Probation practice as social work – viewpoints of practitioners in New Zealand. Social Work Review, 4-11. Retrieved from http://anzasw.nz/wp-content/uploads/SW-Review-19-Winter-07-ArticleDale-and-Trlin.pdf
Dembo, R. (1972). Orientation and activities of the parole officer. Criminology, 10(2), 193-215.
Dignan, J. (2005). Understanding victims and restorative justice. UK: Open University Press.
Dumitraşcu, L., & Schiaucu, V. (2008). Supravegherea în comunitate. In V. Schiaucu, & R. Canton (coord.), Manual de Probațiune (pp. 156-191). Bucureşti, România: Editura Euro Standard.
Durnescu, I. (2008). An Exploration of the Purposes and Outcomes of Probation in European Jurisdictions. Probation Journal, 55(3), 273.
Erwin, B. S., & Bennett, L. A. (1987). New dimensions in probation: Georgia's experience with intensive probation supervision (IPS). Research in Brief. Washington, DC: Nationl Institute of Justice.
Foucault, M. (2005). A supraveghea şi a pedepsi. Naşterea închisorii, ediţia a II-a. Bucureşti, România: Editura Paralela 45.
Frunza, A. (2017). Supervizarea şi dezvoltarea profesională a asistenţilor sociali. Iaşi, România: Editura Lumen.
Frunza, M. (2004). Care Ethics as Applied Ethics. Topics for Freedom. Philobiblon, VIII-IX, 143-183.
Fulton, B., Stichman, A., Travis, L., & Latessa, E. (1997). Moderating probation and parole officer attitudes to achieve desired outcomes. The Prison Journal, 77(3), 295-312.
Fusch, P. I., & Ness, L. R. (2015). Are We There Yet? Data Saturation in Qualitative Research. The Qualitative Report, 20(9), 1408-1416.
Garhart, M. C. (2009). Theories of Attachment: An Introduction to Bowlby, Ainsworth, Gerber, Brazelton, Kennell, and Klaus. 1st Edition. SUA: Redleaf Press.
Gergen, K. J., & Gergen, M. (2003). Social Construction: A Reader. SAGE Publications.
Gergen, K. J. (2005). Social Construction in Context. Sage Publishing Inc.
Glaser, D. (1969). The Effectiveness of a Prison and Parole System. Indianapolis, IN: Bobbs/ Merrill.
Goulding, C. (1999). Grounded Theory: some reflections on paradigm, procedures and misconceptions. Working Paper Series. Wolverhampton Business School, Management Research Centre.
Gregory, M. J. (2011). Practical Wisdom and the Ethic of Care in Probation Practice. European Journal of Probation, 3(3), 60–77.
Groza, D. (2006). Drepturile victimei. Recuperarea din uitare. Iaşi, România: Editura Lumen.
Hardy, M. (2014). Practitioner perspectives on risk: Using governmentality to understand contemporary probation practice. European Journal of Criminology, 11(3), 303-318. doi:10.1177/1477370813495758.
Hardyman, P. (1988). No frills: A study of probation resources, activities, and outcome. Doctoral dissetation. Newark, NJ: Rutgers University.
Johnstone, G. (2011). Restorative Justice: Ideas, Values, Debates. New York, SUA: Routledge.
Kavanagh, S. J. (2007). An exploration of offenders experiences of being on a Probation Supervision Order. Trinity College, University of Dublin.
Klockars, C. B. (1972). A theory of probation supervision. Journal of Criminal Law, Criminology, and Police Science, 63(4), 550-557.
Lipovetsky, G. (1996). Amurgul datoriei: Etica nedureroasă a noilor timpuri democratice. Traducere şi prefaţă de Victor-Dinu Vlădulescu. Bucureşti: Editura Babel.
McCleary, R. (1978). Dangerous Men: the sociology of parole. Beverly Hills, CA: Sage Publications, Inc.
Munting, L. (2015). Offender rehabilitation and reintegration: taking the White Paper on Corrections forward. Cape Town. Retrieved from https://pdfs.semanticscholar.org/22be/fbbe206bd7178eb748f268dd6e0c7 c32ea3b.pdf
Nellis, M. (2003). Probation training and the community justice curriculum. British Journal of Social Work, 33(7), 943-959.
Norrie, J., Eggleston, E., & Ringer, M. (2003). Quality Parameters of Supervision in a Correctional Context. New Zealand Journal of Psychology, 32(2), 76-83.
Nye, J. (1990). Bound to Lead: The Changing Nature of American Power. New York, SUA: Basic Books.
Nye, J. (2004). Soft Power: The Means to Success in World Politics. New York, SUA: Public Affairs.
Nye, J. (2011). The Future of Power. New York, SUA: Public Affairs.
O'Donoghue, K. B. (2010). Towards the Construction of Social Work Supervision in Aotearoa New Zealand: A Study of the Perspectives of Social Work Practitioners and Supervisors (Unpublished doctoral dissertation). Massey University, Palmerston North, New Zealand.
Ohlin, L. E., Piven, H., & Pappenfort, D. M. (1956). Major dilemmas of the social worker in probation and parole. National Probation and Parole Association, 11, 211-225.
Ólavur, C. (2011). The Literature Review in Classic Grounded Theory Studies: A methodological note. Grounded Theory Review. An International Journal, 10(3). Retrieved from http://groundedtheoryreview.com/2011/12/20/the-literature-review-inclassic-grounded-theory-studies-a-methodological-note-2/
O'Leary, V., & Duffee, D. (1971). Correctional policy: a classification of goals designed for change. Crime and Deliquency, 17, 373-386.
Onwuegbuzie, A. J., Leech, N. L., Slate, J. R., Stark, M., Sharma, B., Frels, R., Harris, K., & Combs, J. P. (2012). An exemplar for teaching and learning qualitative research. The Qualitative Report, 17(1), 16-77.
Payne, M. (1999). Social construction in social work and social action. In A. Jokin, K. Juhila, & T. Poso (eds.), Constructing social work practices (pp. 25-65). Aldershot, UK: Ashgate.
Phillips, J. (2010). The social construction of probation in England and Wales, and the United States: Implications for the transferability of probation practice. British Journal of Community Justice, 8(1), 5-18.
Popa, D. (2005). Perspective de implementare a justiţiei restaurative în Republica Moldova. In M. Bulgaru (coord.), Asistenţa socială şi justiţia juvenilă: modalităţi de integrare şi cooperare. Culegere de articole elaborate în baza comunicărilor la Conferinţa ştiinţifică din 22 aprilie 2005 (pp. 81-89). Universitatea de Stat din Moldova. Centrul Republican de Resurse pentru Asistenţă Socială.
Ricks, E., & Louden, J. E. (2015). The Relationship Between Officer Orientation and Supervision Strategies in Community Corrections. Law and Human Behavior, 39(2), 130-141. doi:10.1037/lhb0000098.
Ross, T. & Johnson, W. (1997). Intensive supervision officers survey: officer attitudes and orientations. Perspectives, 21, 37-42.
Rowan, R. J. (1956). Let's define surveillance and treatment in parole. Proceedings of the American Correctional Association. College Park, Maryland: American Corrections Association.
Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2012). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (3rd ed.). Thousand Oaks: Sage.
Sandu, A., & Damian, S. (2010). Restorative Justice a New (appreciative) paradigm [Justița restaurativă. O nouă paradigmă (apreciativa)]. Jurnalul de Studii Juridice, 2010, Nr. special, Decembrie, pp. 493-505.
Sandu, A., & Damian, S. (2012). Applying Appreciative Inquiry Principles in the Restorative Justice Field. Postmodern Openings, 3(2), 37-52.
Sandu, A. (2016a). The Establishment of Probation Systems in Romania and the Republic of Moldova. The European Proceedings of Social & Behavioural Sciences EpSBS, 15, 865-874. doi:10.15405/epsbs.2016.09.108
Sandu, A. (2016b). Probation between Counselling and Supervision. Studia Universitatis Moldaviae. Seria Ştiinţe Sociale, 8(98), 30-38.
Sandu, A. (2016c). Cadre normativ-instituţionale ale construcţiei sociale a profesiei de consilier de probaţiune în zona de N-E a României şi în Republica Moldova [Institutional regulatory frameworks of the social construction of the probation counselor profession in N-E Romania and the Republic of Moldova]. Sociologie Românească, XIV(1), 23-43.
Sandu, A., & Unguru, E. (2016). Medierea şi probaţiunea. Practici sociale restaurative. Ediţia a –II-a. Iaşi, România: Editura Lumen.
Sandu, A., & Unguru, E. (2017). Several Conceptual Clarifications on the Distinction between Constructivism and Social Constructivism. Postmodern Openings, 8(2), 51-61. doi:10.18662/po/2017.0802.04
Sandu, A., & Ignatescu, C. (2017). Retributivity and public perception on the noncustodial sanctions. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 9(3), 103-128. doi:10.18662/rrem/2017.0903.07
Sandu, A. (2017a). The Development of Human Resources in the Probation Services. A Qualitative Analysis. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 9(2), 56-92. doi:10.18662/rrem/2017.0902.04.
Sandu, A. (2017b). Values-based Social Work: Case Study on Probation Practice in Romania. In Sandu, A., & Frunza, A. (eds.), Ethical Issues in Social Work Practice. SUA: IGI GLOBAL. Disponibil online la adresa: https://www.amazon.com/Ethical-Issues-Social-WorkPractice/dp/1522530908
Sandu, A. (2018). Constructionist Grounded Theory - GT. Conceptual and Methodological Clarifications. Revista Romaneasca pentru Educatie Multidimensionala, 10(1), 183-209. doi:10.18662/rrem/28
Spoială, A. (2009). Probaţiunea şi reintegrarea socială a infractorului, ed. a 2-a. Chişinău: Centrul Editorial al UASM.
Toroipan, R., & Oancea, G. (2002). Justiţia restaurativă. Metode de reinserţie pentru tinerii delincvenţi în România. Jurnalul practicilor pozitive comunitare, 3-4, 1-4.
Ward, T., & Maruna, S. (2008). Rehabilitation: Beyond the risk paradigm. New York, NY: Routledge.
Wenzel, M., Okimoto, T. G., Feather, N. T., & Platow, M. J. (2008). Retributive and restorative justice. Law and Human Behavior, 32(5), 375-89.
Whetzel, J., Paparozzi, M., Alexander, M., & Lowenkamp, C. T. (2011). Goodbye to a worn-out dichotomy: Law enforcement, social work, and a balanced approach (A survey of federal probation officer attitudes). Federal Probation, 75(2), 7-12.
Downloads
Published
How to Cite
Issue
Section
License
Authors who publish with this journal agree to the following terms:
- Authors retain copyright and grant this journal right of first publication, with the work simultaneously licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution License that allows others to share the work, with an acknowledgement of the work's authorship and initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are able to enter into separate, additional contractual arrangements for the non-exclusive distribution of the journal's published version of the work (e.g. post it to an institutional repository or publish it in a book), with an acknowledgement of its initial publication in this journal.
- Authors are permitted and encouraged to post their work online (e.g. in institutional repositories or on their website) prior to and during the submission process, as it can lead to productive exchanges, as well as an earlier and greater citation of published work (See The Effect of Open Access).
LUMEN SS Journal has an Attribution-NonCommercial-NoDerivs
CC BY-NC-ND
